Isnt the photon an imaginary mathemathical description of the sum of the energy of light particles.?

Question

The photon not being a particle itself .But a lumped mass of particles moving at variable frequencies. Hence representing value of the radiation energy of the micromass particles of light? is that correct?

arent light particles invisible micromasses in the order of 10^-51kilos which are very fast moving entities?structures that present theory has not identified or have an answer for?

Answer 1

There are two entities namely, material particle and energy particle.

There are two characteristics mass and energy which are common to both material particle and energy particle.

Mass and energy are related by the simple equation E = m c c.

The total energy of a material particle can be represented either by the term mass or by the term energy or by both, using the above equation.

Similarly the total energy of an energy particle can be represented by the term mass or by the term energy or by both, using the above equation.

The difference between a material particle and energy particle lies in the fact that the former has a rest mass or rest energy, which cannot be converted into energy by simple means and the latter, has no such rest mass or rest energy.

We are so accustomed with material particles that we are not able to distinguish the rest mass with its increase of mass when moving with certain speed.

Similarly when we speak of mass of a photon we intuitively think of the rest mass of the material particle whereas it is not rest mass but it is energy which may at any time can be equated to energy using the equation E=mcc.The total energy of energy particle is the kinetic energy only.

Thus there is a difference between a material particle and energy particle.

Answer 2

Nope. Photons propagate with single frequencies--in fact, this is almost the definition of the photon which falls out of the photoelectric effect. Despite the fact that they are "monochromatic" and hence delocalized (in a momentum eigenstate) the energy of a photon is still quantized. It is in this sense a single particle. Moreover, absent interactions, relativistic considerations prevent the decay of a photon into anything else.

Answer 3

Not exactly. The photon is a particle, but differentiates from an electron in behavior only. Because of this, the energy is a defining characteristic, but the word actually refers to the particle itself.

Answer 4

Photons exhibit the same wave-particle duality as subatomic debris, behaving as waves even as propagating by ability of area, and as debris even as interacting with count number. Einstein, in 1905, defined how the flexibility of the photon changed into on the difficulty of wavelength. We use wavelength because is the premier thanks to bodily signify gentle. bear in mind that the wave and the photon aren't any further diverse issues, only diverse interactions with the same difficulty. for this reason, there is no discrepancy in making use of the houses of the wave to signify the photon. The photon has no mass, despite the indisputable fact that it does have momentum, so the DeBroglie equation nonetheless applies.

Answer 5

first, the "light particle" that u mentioned, IS the photon, and light behaves like a particle but also like a wave at the same time. a photon is the same as a "lump" of photons together, we wouldnt notice the difference

Answer 6

The photon is the positively charged particle of an atom. The atom is the lumped mass of particles.

Answer 7

the photon is exactly what its description warrants.

it is NOT a lump of particles because it is cannot be divided according to its definition.

this definiton is derived from experimental data and has been thoroughly tested ( as far as current physics ).

it is NOT imaginary as we can observe the photon and its properties.

the photon is a well understood concept in physics with very few theoretical inconsistencies. ( unlike the graviton, which has not been experimentally confirmed ).

hope your question was somewhat resolved ! :)

Answer 8

well mister smarty-pants, are you talking about real photons or virtual ones? neither are exactly imaginary, but virtual photos are not full fledged on account of their sudden absorption by the electrons that emit them and because their rest mass isn't zero...

some theorize that an eye, properly adapted to the dark could detect a single photon....but the same also agree that, once you become aware of the yourself (meaning the ability to experience your own internal functions and control them) enough to detect photons, you could also (in theory) experience timelessness (at the quantum level).

Answer 9

not your horrible wrong i wouldn´t know were to star correcting